Thank goodness Cable likes to beat the shi out of coaches and women allegedly; its the only reason he wasn't gobbled up right after Al fired him. In Cable's defense, you should be able to deck whomever if you can create a rushing attack as he did in Oakland and now Seattle. He's EARNED the right to deck fools. Come to think of it, I like to think Cable's knocked Bevell around a few times.

And Montana, I remember 95% of the yahoos on this board wanted Bradley gone. But they only posted that in between Dilfer and Charlie chants.

pehawk wrote:Thank goodness Cable likes to beat the shi out of coaches and women allegedly; its the only reason he wasn't gobbled up right after Al fired him. In Cable's defense, you should be able to deck whomever if you can create a rushing attack as he did in Oakland and now Seattle. He's EARNED the right to deck fools. Come to think of it, I like to think Cable's knocked Bevell around a few times.

And Can, I remember 95% of the yahoos on this board wanted Bradley gone. But they only posted that in between Dilfer and Charlie chants.

I'm still a yahoo that would like to see him gone. His play-calling gets way too passive at times, see 3rd and long situations where he plays the softzone, only rushes 3 and gives up a first down. I think the only weakness of the defense is the D coordinator.I thought he'd "grow out of" his softzone tendencies, but he hasn't. Hopefully he will and soon.

Personally i'd much rather have Cable then Bradley as our next coach, or go outside the organization and get somebody else. It's nothing against Bradley, I think he's a fine coach and all that but i've never seen anything from him that makes me think he's a future head coach.

pehawk wrote:Thank goodness Cable likes to beat the shi out of coaches and women allegedly; its the only reason he wasn't gobbled up right after Al fired him. In Cable's defense, you should be able to deck whomever if you can create a rushing attack as he did in Oakland and now Seattle. He's EARNED the right to deck fools. Come to think of it, I like to think Cable's knocked Bevell around a few times.

And Can, I remember 95% of the yahoos on this board wanted Bradley gone. But they only posted that in between Dilfer and Charlie chants.

I'm still a yahoo that would like to see him gone. His play-calling gets way too passive at times, see 3rd and long situations where he plays the softzone, only rushes 3 and gives up a first down. I think the only weakness of the defense is the D coordinator.I thought he'd "grow out of" his softzone tendencies, but he hasn't. Hopefully he will and soon.

I agree that its frustrating. But, alot of the situations, I'm especially thinking against Romo and Rogers, I gave credit to the opposing QB's. Romo especially played incredible that day. Bradford had 1 or 2 of those also.

pehawk wrote:Thank goodness Cable likes to beat the shi out of coaches and women allegedly; its the only reason he wasn't gobbled up right after Al fired him. In Cable's defense, you should be able to deck whomever if you can create a rushing attack as he did in Oakland and now Seattle. He's EARNED the right to deck fools. Come to think of it, I like to think Cable's knocked Bevell around a few times.

And Can, I remember 95% of the yahoos on this board wanted Bradley gone. But they only posted that in between Dilfer and Charlie chants.

I'm still a yahoo that would like to see him gone. His play-calling gets way too passive at times, see 3rd and long situations where he plays the softzone, only rushes 3 and gives up a first down. I think the only weakness of the defense is the D coordinator.I thought he'd "grow out of" his softzone tendencies, but he hasn't. Hopefully he will and soon.

What DC in the league doesn't run a soft soft when the situation dictates? A soft zone on third and long prevents big plays, and. most of the games the Hawks have played this season had a razor-thin point differential. Can you really have a D that is #1 overall in spite of their DC? That sounds more like rationalization than sound reasoning. He runs a soft zone on third and long, therefore he's no good? I would say that is just a difference in philosophy. If Pete didn't agree with philosophy, Gus wouldn't be doing it. If we see this offense finally takeoff this season, watch gus magically get more agressive as we play with a larger lead.

pehawk wrote:Thank goodness Cable likes to beat the shi out of coaches and women allegedly; its the only reason he wasn't gobbled up right after Al fired him. In Cable's defense, you should be able to deck whomever if you can create a rushing attack as he did in Oakland and now Seattle. He's EARNED the right to deck fools. Come to think of it, I like to think Cable's knocked Bevell around a few times.

And Can, I remember 95% of the yahoos on this board wanted Bradley gone. But they only posted that in between Dilfer and Charlie chants.

I'm still a yahoo that would like to see him gone. His play-calling gets way too passive at times, see 3rd and long situations where he plays the softzone, only rushes 3 and gives up a first down. I think the only weakness of the defense is the D coordinator.I thought he'd "grow out of" his softzone tendencies, but he hasn't. Hopefully he will and soon.

I agree that its frustrating. But, alot of the situations, I'm especially thinking against Romo and Rogers, I gave credit to the opposing QB's. Romo especially played incredible that day. Bradford had 1 or 2 of those also.

True, but why go against what has been working after dominating for the previous 2 downs?Bring the heat, the pressure is on the offense on 3rd and long, dont only bring 3 and give the quarterback all day to throw he ball.

All of the great defenses in the NFL (the Ravens, Pittsburgh ack, SF ack, AZ ack) dont let up on 3rd down and long. That is all I'm saying, I'm hoping Bradley figures this out soon, I really honestly want to like the guy but his play calling in certain situations irritates me to no end.

MontanaHawk05 wrote:Everyone was ready to fire Bradley two years ago when he had nothing to work with. How times change!

Two years ago? How about 2 weeks ago for our third down Defense. After the many coordinators throughout the league that have not made it as coaches of late I'm not so sure he is next up for a HC job. His system has done well recently with the players that were put in place but again there are probably 8-10 coordinators/position coaches per year that are looked at as HC candidates for the next season. We will see.

Scottemojo wrote:Bradley is about as much the actual DC as I am. Pete may try to be hands off, but no way that isn't actually his baby.

Oh, and you know this for sure how?

Unless you say you are on the coaching staff...go ahead and talk to this

He is a puppet DC. He is executing Pete's vision. Pete has said more than once it isn't easy for him to to not make defensive calls, and sometimes he still overrules the DC's playcalls. That is how I know this for sure I am not saying Bradley won't be a great head coach or that he is a bad coach here, I am saying that this is Pete's defense and Bradley is just an extension of his vision.

Personally, I think the defensive adjustments have been slow. We were slow to adjust when Green Bay changed up their offensive scheme in the 2nd half. We never adjusted to Kolb on that last drive of his when he clearly was only working underneath. It took a couple of weeks for us to work out some 3rd and long coverage problems that I suspect will continue to pop up. The way we flummoxed Carolina was nice, but Newton is terrible at the short game, so I don't know what we can really take from that game that will apply to the Patriot game. And I put those things on Pete, not Bradley.

pehawk wrote:Thank goodness Cable likes to beat the shi out of coaches and women allegedly; its the only reason he wasn't gobbled up right after Al fired him. In Cable's defense, you should be able to deck whomever if you can create a rushing attack as he did in Oakland and now Seattle. He's EARNED the right to deck fools. Come to think of it, I like to think Cable's knocked Bevell around a few times.

And Montana, I remember 95% of the yahoos on this board wanted Bradley gone. But they only posted that in between Dilfer and Charlie chants.

Actually the Seahawks grabbed him within a few days. I remember how pissed my Ray-Duh fan brother in law was when they let him go.